Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Prasanth Andrews S/o Andres – Appellant
Versus
Ayyappan Pillai S/o Gopala Pillai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial officers must ensure fairness in case proceedings. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner raised issues on the dismissal of the application to present evidence. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. no notice to respondent needed; review petition available for grievance. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. haste by the magistrate in judgment pronouncement criticized. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. judgment deferred; proper orders must be communicated. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
1. It is true that the judiciary is facing docket explosions, and every judicial officer should strive to dispose of cases without adjourning cases at the instance of parties for frivolous reasons. But, while trying to dispose of the cases, the court should bear in mind that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. It emphasises the importance of transparency and perception in the administration of justice. Even if a case is dismissed or allowed, parties should leave the court premises with a feeling that they obtained a fair chance to contest their case. Then only the system will prevail. That is the success of the justice delivery system.
2. The petitioner is an accused in ST No.789 of 2023 on the file of the Additional
The court highlighted the principle of ensuring fairness and transparency in the judicial process, directing that all parties must be properly informed of verdicts and orders.
Judicial fairness requires that parties be served with copies of orders to challenge them; proceeding without service undermines due process.
Opportunity for further cross examination can be granted on the condition of compensating the respondent for inconvenience suffered due to adjournments.
A litigant ought not to suffer because of the mistake of the Counsel, and a reasonable explanation for absence can warrant an opportunity for consideration of the complaint on merits.
The court emphasizes expeditious resolution of pending suits, adhering to previous directives for timely judicial proceedings.
The court established that the amendment to Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. requires an inquiry only when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction, but if sufficient grounds are evident from the re....
The requirement of notice before condonation of delay in filing a report is essential to ensure fair procedure as mandated by the principles of natural justice.
Compliance under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the accused is residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, is mandatory.
The court emphasized the necessity for a reasoned order regarding the requirement of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. after condoning delay in filing complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable I....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
